Letters to the Editor
vwcats
Published Letters: 73 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Those Who Think HRC would be a good leader:
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton gets serious]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sadly you are fooling yourselves by overlooking some obvious facts about Hillary if you think she'd be a good leader.
She throws around her white house years as her experience. She produces no proof to back up her claims. But, she claims to have been the face of foreign policy in the 90s. Intimately involved.
Then, two years later she votes for war without reading the NIE and now claims she was fooled by Bush.
If she was so involved in foreign policy in the white house she would have had access to information no one else had in the senate well before 2002. She would have known alot of things not normally known in regards to Iraq.
But, she was fooled by Bush a mere 2 years later.
Doesn't anyone else have a problem with this contradiction?
So, she not only has a track record of incredibly poor judgment but, just goes along with the majority regardless of knowing Iraq was not a threat rather than stand up and tell the truth? She is spinning and everyone is falling for it without looking at the fact that most of what she claims makes no sense.
That is the threat.
As for the world threats: Our greatest president, FDR, said:
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
-
I live in Illinois
[Read the article: Chicago is Barack Obama's kind of town]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I live about an hour west of Chicago in Rockford. We elected our first black mayor in 1990. He was so popular that he ended up retiring because we kept him in office. He was one of the best we ever had.
It is true that the white people have no problem electing an african americans.
I don't recall voting for an african american being an issue here. Neither is gender. It is the person. Besides, we figure since the white guys are so corrupt it's better to vote for someone who is not.
Except for Dick Durbin. He is cool.
And this may be why I cannot understand why people think Obama's race would be an issue elsewhere since it's not a big deal here.
-
JoeMartin64
[Read the article: Chicago is Barack Obama's kind of town]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, I am not the only one to notice that Joan carries alot of water for Clintons.
No matter how badly they act, how nasty they are or how low they stoop, you can be sure that Joan is there to excuse them.
How sad.
I am cannot understand why so many democrats insist on being blind and excusing the Clintons for everything.
We laugh at the wingnuts who stand by King George no matter his crimes or incompetence when in reality, many democrats are the same way when it comes to the Clintons. They refuse to see the reality of them.
-
When Bloggers loose perspective.
[Read the article: Dolores Huerta: "Como se llama" Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anyone who takes Taylor Marsh seriously is simply not paying attention.
Marsh is operating as a tool of the Clintons and has lost most of her credibility. Where she was once a respected blogger with a balanced and insightful thinking, she has devolved into writing exclusively about her sheer hate for Barack Obama.
It is one thing to promote your choice for the nominee but, another to become so full of hate for a rival that your blog consists completely of rants against that rival. She has taken to even making stories up of whole cloth. It is sad to see someone who was once a great commentator and respected writer and blogger to become this obsessive as to destroy her reputation and become somewhat of a joke. I doubt she will be able to regain her once respected reputation when this is all over - regardless of outcome.
Though Joan Walsh seems a backer of Hillary's she does retain a balanced perspective and of this she deserves much respect.
As an aside off topic, Joan. This morning on Morning Joe you wondered why Obama made the comments he did regarding Reagan.
I urge to you look at Hillary's site where she praises HW Bush and Reagan in her list of favorite presidents.
And, did you concider this was a calulated move to diss Clinton as someone who did not move the country back from the course Reagan set it on. And to have people concider how Bill Clinton showed so much promise only to become an average president who was more about vapid triangulation rather than bold policy or vision.
-
You Can't Go Home Again
[Read the article: Bill Clinton looks backward]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Billary supporters are so angry with those who do not want to go backwards to the 90s but, forward.
We chose not to support the Clintons because they are yesterday. Their time has come and gone. It is almost 20 years since Bill clinton ran for president. And yet, too many democrats would rather keep reliving this fantasy in their mind of the false golden age. It was not.
The economy was spurred by Silicon Valley. And they forget Somalia and Bosnia in their proclamations of peace.
For the most part the 90s were about hate politics and the rise of rightwing radio and Fox in response to it.
Scandals and dramas and political warfare.
You won't get what you are nostalgic for if the Clintons get their 3rd term. Time, events and the world has changed drastically since then. Usually if you try to recapture the past you end up very disappointed and the past is tarnished by it as well.
Those who cite Bill's approval in the late 90s forget the reason is because most people felt the impeachment was a sham and so, rallied behind Clinton and wanted to send a message to the republicans. But, in private, many democrats were angry and embarrassed by Clinton's behavior. The republicans show trial is what made them forgive him and have sympathy for him. The same sympathy that sent Hillary to the senate.
Sometimes I wonder if those who are looking back are not looking for their lost youth more than anything else. If you were 30 when Bill got elected you are now facing the oncoming 50 now.